↓ Skip to main content

Rhizobium radiobacter

Overview of attention for article published in Cornea : The Journal of Cornea and External Disease, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Rhizobium radiobacter
Published in
Cornea : The Journal of Cornea and External Disease, May 2016
DOI 10.1097/ico.0000000000000780
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nigel H. Barker, Jordan M. Thompson, Martin G. Mullen, Melissa A. Weekes, Linda N. Nguyen, Crystal K. M. Haynes, Darlene Miller

Abstract

To present the first reported cases of keratitis caused by Rhizobium radiobacter. A retrospective review of an observational case series from 2 institutions. There were 4 cases of microbiologically proven R. radiobacter. Three of these patients were contact lens wearers. The patient in case 4 defaulted from follow-up after receipt of the culture result. Keratitis in the other cases resolved with variable clinical courses once culture-directed therapy was instituted. R. radiobacter is a member of the genus Rhizobium. It is a gram-negative bacillus and was previously identified as an opportunistic pathogen in nonophthalmic infections and in a few cases of endophthalmitis. To our knowledge, we have described the clinical presentation, management, and treatment outcomes of the first reported cases of keratitis caused by R. radiobacter.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 2 13%
Other 1 7%
Student > Bachelor 1 7%
Student > Master 1 7%
Researcher 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 8 53%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 40%
Unknown 9 60%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 March 2016.
All research outputs
#27,870,100
of 34,517,649 outputs
Outputs from Cornea : The Journal of Cornea and External Disease
#2,415
of 4,167 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#249,830
of 336,666 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cornea : The Journal of Cornea and External Disease
#36
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,517,649 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,167 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 336,666 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.